Stone v Chief Executive, Department of Lands

[1995] QLC 124

[1995] QLC 124

 

  LAND COURT

BRISBANE

12 OCTOBER 1995

Re:     AV94-507 -
  An Appeal against an unimproved valuation -
Valuation of Land Act
  Local Government:           Whitsunday

H.A. & Y.B. Stone
  v.
  Chief Executive, Department of Lands

(Hearing at Proserpine)

D E C I S I O N

This appeal relates to the valuation of land described as Lot 602 on Plan A8595, Parish of Conway, containing 610m² and located at Hill Crest Avenue about 400 metres north-westerly of the Airlie Beach Post Office.
           The land is zoned "Residential A".  Water, sewerage, electricity, telephone and cleansing services are available.  Hill Crest Avenue is bitumen sealed with concrete kerbing and channelling on the side adjacent to the property frontage.
           As at 30th June, 1993, the Department of Lands' unimproved valuation of the land was in the amount of $97,000.  Mr S.J. Whitfield, registered valuer, made the valuation for the Department.  The appellants' estimate of value is $80,000.  That is the valuation of Mr B. Conroy, registered valuer, who represented the appellants at the hearing.
           The appeal was heard, by consent, with Appeal AV94-506 and Appeal V95-11.  From his overall schedule of sales evidence, Mr Conroy, in this matter, sought to gain support for his valuation from the following sales:

(2)Lot 5 Airlie Crescent, 668m², 6.10.92, $65,000, Department of Lands' valuation $64,000.

(4)Lot 9 Airlie Crescent, 905m², 29.10.93, $91,000, Department of Lands' valuation $70,000.

(8)Lot 12 Airlie Crescent, 608m², 11.1.93, $75,000, Department of Lands' valuation $68,000.

(9)Lot 11 Airlie Crescent, 700m², 22.4.93, $70,000, Department of Lands' valuation $69,000.

Mr Whitfield had relied on the same five sales as he did in Appeal AV94-506.  I will not repeat those details, however Mr Conroy's Sales (8) and (9) were common to Mr Whitfield's evidence.
           Mr Conroy felt that the price paid in his Sale (4) may have been influenced by the size of the site and a slightly improved "after date" level of value.  In effect he relied more on the remaining sales which indicated a level of value in the range of $65,000 to $75,000 for sites with steeper topography than the subject but equal, if not superior, views.  While he agreed that the views from the subject site could be described as attractive, they were limited to an outlook over Airlie Bay.  He did not agree that the locality of the subject land should be regarded as the "dress circle" residential address of Airlie Beach which in turn commanded a premium in residential values, as was Mr Whitfield's opinion.  Mr Conroy regarded the Kara Crescent locality adjacent to his sale properties in Airlie Crescent, and the street in which some of Mr Whitfield's evidence was located, as the true "dress circle" of airlie Beach. 
           In Appeal AV94-506, Mr Conroy had referred to another sale (Sale (10)), being of a 658m² site in Airlie Crescent, much closer to the subject land, which had sold in November 1993 for $100,000.  The Department's valuation on that land was $110,000.  In this matter, he did not see it as a relevant sale, due to what he described as the far superior views available from the sale site.  Regardless of that opinion, the sale does indicate a significantly higher level of value for a site with above average views than is shown by the sales of sites in the cul-de-sac section of Airlie Crescent and Kara Crescent, also with above average quality views.  Sale (10) also adjoins the busy Shute Harbour Road. 
           I found Mr Conroy's Sale (10) to have assisted in my deliberations relative to Appeal AV94-506 and, having knowledge of that sale, it is one which I cannot ignore here.
           Mr Whitfield had no previous knowledge of the sale, but, having had his attention drawn to it, he felt it supported the valuations appealed against.  On Mr Conroy's evidence, there would seem to be no doubt that the views from his Sale (10) land are quite superior, but I accept that that land also has inferior topography and position to the subject land.
           In the absence of better evidence to disprove Mr Whitfield's opinion relative to the "dress circle" and the premium in values attaching to the location of the subject land, I would not alter his valuation.
           The appeal is therefore dismissed and the valuation of the chief executive affirmed.

MEMBER OF THE LAND COURT